Saturday, November 20, 2010

Many people think that birds evolved from dinosaurs.
To be more precise their claim is that birds evolved from non-maniraptoran coelurosaurs.
And yet when they compare a "dinosaur" to a bird, they do not take a drawing of a non-maniraptor coelurosaurian, (eg. tyrannosaur) but they take a drawing of a non-neornithine Aves (eg.Ichthyornithes) creature and compare it with a modern bird.
This of course is irrelevant.
The issue is NOT WITHIN AVES but between non-maniraptor coelurosaurs and maniraptors.

Here are some non-maniraptor coelurosaurs.
Tyrannosaur:
Compsognathid:
These are believed to be sister taxa to the non-maniraptor coelurosaur ancestor of birds. But as we all know, the dino to bird theory enthusiasts never present any pictorial representation of any purported non-maniraptor coelurosaur, bird ancestor.
So who knows what it looks like.

But certainly if we want to understand what the dino to bird theory is actually claiming, we need to compare the non-maniraptor coelurosaurs to modern birds and not non-neornithine Aves creatures to modern birds.

It shows the "pteroid bone" which is a neomorph. It shows the other fingers including the extended 4th finger.
It shows that the pterosaurs bent their wings at the junction of the metacarpals and the fingers.
This is different than their descendant modern birds that have fused the hand so they no longer bend at the junction of the metacarpals and the fingers. Instead modern birds bend at the wrist.

Friday, November 12, 2010

I have been analyzing the pterosaurs to see if they actually had beaks as we use the term "beak". Rhamphorhynchoid stands for "prow beaks". This kind of "beak" is not the extending kind of beak that we associate with the word "beak".When the pterosaurs evolved into primitive birds, it may well be that the most basal primitive "beakless" birds had snouts, like prow-beaked pterosaurs.And "beaks", as we use the word, evolved within the primitive birds.This idea is in line with the fossil record.This idea requires more analysis but it seems right to me at this point.

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Here is a reference to the "pycnofibres" - even as early as the Rhamphorhynchus.If they are related to feathers they correspond to downy feathers and not pennaceous (contour) feathers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pterodactylus
"The wings were long, and the wing membranes appear to have lacked the furry covering of pycnofibres present in some other pterosaurs (such as Pterorhynchus and Jeholopterus)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pterorhynchus
"This type specimen consists of an articulated, nearly-complete skeleton with remains of the integument. These included the wing membrane, hair-like structures, a long version of the vane found at the end of "rhamphorhynchoid" tails, and a head crest with both a low bony base and a large keratin extension"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeholopterus
"The specimen is crushed into a slab and counterslab pair, so that parts of the specimen are preserved on one side of a split stone and some on the other. This includes exquisite preservation of carbonized skin fibers and, arguably, "hair" or"protofeathers." The fibers are preserved around the body of the specimen in a "halo." Wing tissue is preserved, though its extent is debatable, including the exact points of attachment to the legs (or if it attached to the legs at all). In 2009 Alexander Kellner published a study reporting the presence of three layers of fibres [actinofibrils] in the wing, allowing the animal to precisely adapt the wing profile.[3]"

Monday, November 1, 2010

Here is a reference to a very interesting picture:http://pterosaur-net.blogspot.com/20...-throwing.html"An unusual pterosaur skull, nicknamed the Painten Pelican, has caused a lot of discussion amongst pterosaur palaeontologists because it is, superficially at least, so danged weird (see image, above). The specimen comprised a complete skull, mandible and cervical vertebra and, if you’re around in Southern Germany, you can see it for yourself: it’s on display in the Solnhofen Museum. A cast and UV photographs of the specimen were making quite a buzz at the 2007 Flugsaurier Meeting, and, apparently, the specimen is very slowly being written up."

Note

This site presents the idea that pterosaurs (rather than dinosaurs) developed into birds. This is not an "evolutionism" vs. "creationism" issue.An "evolutionist" can say that the pterosaur to bird developments are due to neo-Darwinian means (random mutation and natural selection).On the other hand, a "creationist" can say that those developments are the acts of a higher intelligence.This site does not take a position on the "evolutionism" vs. "creationism" question.

Philosophy

Like most people, I have philosophical ideas that go beyond the nuts and bolts of the scientific analysis of the origin and development of birds.There are larger questions that philosophers have grappled with since the most ancient times. If anyone is interested in my take on those more philosophical ideas, click here.But please realize that all the ideas of this site are pure materialist, scientific ideas supported by physical evidence and scientific studies.

The 19th-century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer astutely summarized the three stages through which all truth passes: first, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently opposed;

and third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

"In the choice between changing one's mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof."~John Kenneth Galbraith

Keywords

origin of birds, pterosaur is the ancestor of modern birds, birds did not evolve from dinosaurs, cladistics, stratocladistics, Cretaceous, Mesozoic, fossil record, BAD, BAND, birds are not dinosaurs, flightless birds, aves